Poll: Poll: Mass Effect 1 or 2? Which do you like better?

[GrizzlerBorno]

Mass Effect 1. because I'm a fan on ME almost entirely for it's Story and it's concept, and hence Tighter gameplay isn't as much of a draw for me as it is for other players. sure they made the tech classes fun (readlayable) in ME2 and that's appreciated, but as i always whine: ME 2 HAD NO STORY! It didn't advance the story arc AT ALL. and that just seems silly when you have only three tries to craft, what is to me, so far the Best Space opera story I've ever seen/played/heard.
Oh and, yes the characters were great and interesting and brought some great ideas to the table, but my point still stands.

 

[The Madman]

Mass Effect 1 had the better overall story I felt, and the climactic final moments of that game was then and remains now one of the most glorious finale I've ever seen or played in a game! The attack on the Citadel, the massive space battle, your more personal confrontation with Sare, and how it was all tied together 'Star Wars' style was brilliant and left me desperately wanting it not to end as the badass credits rolled.

On the other hand, Mass Effect 2 had the better gameplay and set pieces, finale aside. The individual missions in Mass Effect 2 were much better than those in the first game, the controls felt tighter, and the companion side-quests were without exception amazingly fun to play. It was just damned fun to play!

So I gotta go with the boring reply and say both. Each game has their ups and downs, areas where one excels over the other, and I'm torn trying to pick between the two.

Now if Mass Effect 3 can have the second games gameplay and focus with the first games deeper rpg mechanics and better story, well, it could be something special!

 

[Legion]

Both.

Mass Effect had a better story overall, and I enjoyed the combat aspect more as it felt less repetitive (and levels weren't so obviously designed for the cover mechanic). The side-quests were much better (not counting ME2's Loyalty Missions in this) and the Citadel remains one of my favourite locations in a game ever.

Mass Effect 2 however had a deeper interaction with the characters, a more emotional story (or stories), superb graphics and a much more intense atmosphere. The individual missions had a lot more impact and the whole game felt deeper. I also preferred the way the game played; how you went about things, how upgrades were applied and so on. The only let-down was the dumbing down of the levelling up system.

To be honest I think judging them separately works in the same way as The Lord Of The Rings, while people may have preferences, they still count as one thing overall. I always think of Mass Effect as a series rather than two individual games so to speak.

Mass Effect 1 had the better overall story I felt, and the climactic final moments of that game was then and remains now one of the most glorious finale I've ever seen or played in a game! The attack on the Citadel, the massive space battle, your more personal confrontation with Sare, and how it was all tied together 'Star Wars' style was brilliant and left me desperately wanting it not to end as the badass credits rolled.

On the other hand, Mass Effect 2 had the better gameplay and set pieces, finale aside. The individual missions in Mass Effect 2 were much better than those in the first game, the controls felt tighter, and the companion side-quests were without exception amazingly fun to play. It was just damned fun to play!

So I gotta go with the boring reply and say both. Each game has their ups and downs, areas where one excels over the other, and I'm torn trying to pick between the two.

Now if Mass Effect 3 can have the second games gameplay and focus with the first games deeper rpg mechanics and better story, well, it could be something special!

It seems we think almost exactly the same thing.

 

[Redingold]

Hmmm....

This is a tough one.

I'm going to have to go with Mass Effect, but only just, and the reason why is something I can't really explain. It just felt more...er...more.

The Citadel really felt like an enormous space station, the guns felt more real (the tinny, rattly sound of gunfire in ME2 is not nice) and the Mako added a sense of scale that ME2 lacked.

I didn't find the combat to be that much better in ME2, the power system sucked and the ammo system was incredibly stupid. On the other hand, I much preferred ME2's modular armour system, and only wish they could have applied that to the weapons. The characters in ME2 were much better, but the story was significantly worse, and just raises questions, such as why was Sovereign working with the geth when he already had a race of hyper-advanced fanatical devotees at his command? They also kinda screwed the continuity over. For instance, Joker. In Mass Effect, he only had brittle bones in his legs, and said he could only get around with the use of crutches and leg-braces. In ME2, you nearly break his arm when you lay a hand on it, but then later, Joker's walking around without crutches and even being thrown onto the floor without being severely injured.

I love ME2, but it feels sort of washed-out and thin when compared to ME.

 

[Nimcha]

I think the suicide mission is one of the most intense missions I've ever played in a game. The first time when I played through and lost a team member I was actually shocked. Not many games have done that to me.

So I'm going to have to go with 2, even though I share most of the criticism it gets.

 

[Ferrious]

For me, this is a no-brainer: Mass Effect 2. I don't think I could ever recommend someone going back to ME1 from ME2. If you started with ME1, great, welcome to the fun, but if you've played ME2 and thought "I want to know more!" I usually suggest reading wikis rather than trying to play the game itself.

The story is more focused, the action is actually good gameplay and the conversation system improvements added a lot for me. I also felt they nailed the Paragon/Renegade system better in ME2 - it was less "I am a jerk" and more "Gotta get the job done, no time to waste or we all die".

I hated the Mako sections, for reasons everyone knows about, but I hadn't appreciated the games other shortcomings until I went back to it. I watched someone finish ME1 again recently and was appalled at how the final boss fight basically revolved around the aiming system being so bad you couldn't get a bead on the boss. I remembered the end of the game being tense, but looking back it was just frustrating with no real difficulty. I had some really fond memories of ME1. Hell, I bought ME2 without even thinking about it because of my love for ME1, but at the end of the day, it's nothing on its sequel.

Oh, and Legion is awesome. If he's in ME3 I'll pre-order now. Who am I kidding? I'm going to pre-order anyway.

 

[Vault101]

While ME 1 did have a slightly more interesting story definietly ME2 just because they tighened up the combat and made it more fun..plus no vehechles!!!

though you can;t really have one withput the other

 

[Fragged_Templar]

I love both, but each one has its strengths and weaknesses, I prefer the combat of number 2, but the mineral gathering and economy system from number 1 ie, not a limited amount of credits.

 

[Sargey]

I thought ME2 was better, but I still think ME1 is an awesome game.

2 improved a lot of what the players wanted to see change in, and I thought the story telling was a little better too this time around.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

I'm torn on the individual aspects of the games. I actually kind of liked the Mako sequences in ME1 whereas I hated the probe-mining in ME2. I also actually preferred a cluttered inventory of goodies and actually getting exp from killing enemies. Also, I liked the old Citadel more. Essentially, gameplay-wise I prefer ME1.

However, story and writing is very important to me and the second game was much more fulfilling in that regard. The Reapers remained a rather vague threat in the first and you don't actually fight Harbinger yourself, so the whole thing felt like winning a small battle in anticipation of a huge war. ME2, on the other hand, felt like the actual beginning of that war.

I also preferred the variety in characters in ME2 compared to ME1. Garrus and Wrex were the only characters I liked in the first and I genuinely delighted at seeing them again, but the overall cast of 2 is more varied and interesting, plus it has Garrus again (yay! They better bring him back for ME3). Sure, there's overlap and Jack makes me think of that Penny Arcade comic about PoP:WW where the Prince says:"I am filled with generic rage! Grr!", but I felt more like I had a crew rather than a party of strangers.

I guess, in the end, ME2 wins out for me. Well, that's taken me several months to figure out. Thanks for hearing me out, doc. Same time next week?

EDIT: What does "TIM FTW" mean in the poll options? I mean, I know what FTW means, but who/what is TIM?

TIM stands for The Illusive Man.

The leader of cerberus, the guy who brought you back from the dead?

 

[repeating integers]

I like them both equally, for different reasons.

But I will never forgive ME2 for taking away my beloved Mako...

 

[Hashime]

I actually preferred 1. I loved the combat, driving the tank thing was fun, and the inventory system... well, that sucked.
2 was great though, a little more RPG would have been good, and I missed the old weapon mod system, but the story was just as solid, and the combat, though simplified was excellent.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

1, it was actually an RPG.

That, and the biotic class felt like a sci-fi mage, unlike Mass Effect 2, where you basically used Warp as a bullet replacement.

2 was a very good shooter, though.

 

[Mercurio128]

I think 2 is probably superior in every major way, it's just that it feels claustrophobic to me. You're always in a corridor, there isn't really the sense of scale of your environments that you got with ME1. Sure, driving the Mako to a base before you run around it seemed pointless at the time but in ME2 you never had the sense that you were genuinely travelling to a new place.

Especially in the City - type planets, you might as well have just walked through a door to each new area even though they were supposed to be miles away.

 

[tlozoot]

Mass Effect 1 was far less satisfying in its gun play than 2.
The RPG features in the first were annoying as well. I dreaded having to tackle a full inventory because it took soooo long to turn everything into omni-gel. Levelling was decent though.

All in all I think ME2 trimmed everything that should have been trimmed from the first. I tell people to play the first game, because obviously the story is important for the enjoyment of the second, but I do emphasise the fact that the second game is better from a gameplay standpoint, and far less tedious.

If the story in ME1 wasn't as engaging as it was, I would never have finished it. I simply did not enjoy actually playing it.

 

[mrF00bar]

I like both, I liked the story and character interaction/development in ME1 but I loved the character development in ME2 a lot more with all the different members you can recruit. Also the combat game play was a lot smoother, I think that Boiware went a little far completely removing the RPG, making it less god damn annoying would have been nice.

 

[Something Amyss]

They streamlined all the fun out of ME2. I'm probably skipping ME3. At least, at launch. So definitely ME1. I thought the story was compelling and the gameplay was more than "Generic Shooter But...."

 

[Cursed Frogurt]

I largely prefer the first one. Sure it wasn't perfect, but they turned it into a mediocre shooter. I found the combat to be more enjoyable in the original. The story was FAR more interesting.

I honestly don't understand what everyone sees in ME2. It's like I played a different game.

My anticipation for ME3 is quite low since I expect it to be more similar to ME2 rather than ME.

 

[JeanLuc761]

I honestly don't understand what everyone sees in ME2. It's like I played a different game.

To give a different viewpoint, here's what I see:

- A more fleshed out and fully realized art design
- A substantially improved combat system (though I wish the chest-high walls would be more subtle).
- Storyline focus on the characters, rather than the Reapers, making it a more involving and personal story for Shepard.
- 12 fantastic squadmates, each developed far more than anyone in Mass Effect 1 (save maybe for Wrex).
- Introduction of many subplots that will require resolution in ME3 (genophage, Cerberus, quarian/geth war)


Mass Effect 2 is not without its faults, certainly, but it did a lot of things extremely well.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I thoroughly enjoy both games and play both frequently even now. The second is definitely superior overall in gameplay, albeit Biotics were severely underpowered if you pushed up above Veteran. In contrast, ME had a far superior main plot than its sequel. The character depth is debatable at times because while the loyalty missions of ME2 were nigh flawless in development. Some squad mates suffered horridly in lack of dialogue. None being more apparent than Mr. Calibrations. The lackluster continuity was slightly disappointing, as was no Mako/squad banter but not gamebreaking by any stretch.